How IRS firings are expected to screw up tax season
The IRS terminated probationary workers this week, claiming those let go weren't "critical" to tax filing season.
The IRS has already been understaffed in recent years, resulting in delays in processing tax returns and customer service.
One expert said there's no way to cut a substantial number of workers without impacting filing season.
Your tax return may languish on an empty desk at the Internal Revenue Service this season after the agency began firing workers this week.
An internal IRS email viewed by Business Insider said the agency would terminate probationary workers — typically those who have been at the agency for less than a year — who were not "critical" to tax filing season.
Tax experts and IRS employees told BI they expect the terminations to result in delayed tax refunds, slower customer service, and a backlog in paperwork processing. Some spoke to BI under the condition of anonymity.
Natasha Sarin, a professor at Yale Law School, told BI that there's "no way, in the middle of filing season, to cut a substantial number of IRS employees without having an impact on filing season," adding it's an "all hands on deck" time at the IRS.
Many Americans still file paper tax returns, a human resources worker at the IRS said, adding, "If there's not anyone there to process them, it's just going to be sitting."
A former Treasury official likened it to a business "eliminating your entire accounts receivable department," adding, "No business would say we have no interest in collecting the revenue that's due to us."
The IRS and DOGE did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on Thursday that the estimated 3,500 firings "is a small number and probably you can get bigger, especially as we improve the IT at the IRS." He also said that not all IRS employees working on taxes were "fully occupied."
In the wake of the pandemic, the underfunded and understaffed IRS struggled with a backlog of millions of returns, taking months to process them and causing economic hardship for taxpayers.
Sarin, who served as counselor to previous Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, said that the terminations could throw the IRS back into the "dark ages." Taxpayers should be concerned about whether they'll be able to get in touch with the IRS, whether refunds will be processed in a timely manner, and if the IRS website will malfunction during tax season.
A fired IRS worker said that "the long-term ramifications of this will be felt for decades."
"There will continue to be processing delays due to incredibly outdated systems, and there will not be supported free filing for Americans due to budget cuts and lobbying by major tax software players," the worker said.
"It's just going to slow the IRS down," one IRS worker who still has a job at the agency said, adding, "It's a shame that all the progress is going to reverse."
They're referencing increased funding from the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act, which was meant to mitigate staffing issues. Bolstered by IRA funding, hiring at the IRS in recent months focused on tax evasion and fraud detection staff.
Vanessa Williamson, senior fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings Institution and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said during a press call on Thursday that the expected terminations could "disproportionately affect enforcement."
"When you underpay and understaff the IRS, the agency doesn't have the power or the resources it needs to go after wealthy tax evaders with their high-priced lawyers," Williamson said.
"It's going to be incredibly harmful to efficiency at the IRS," the former Treasury official told BI. If the agency can't keep up with existing efficiency programs — like using AI to target audits better — compliance will be less effective, they said.
Over the past couple of weeks, a range of federal agencies have fired their probationary employees as part of President Donald Trump's efforts to slash government spending by reducing the federal workforce. BI previously spoke to over half a dozen fired workers at agencies, including the US Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy, who said they're planning to fight their terminations.
"We're not going to take this lying down," Melanie Mattox Green, a fired US Forest Service worker, told BI. "We all love our work and we're planning on fighting and getting our jobs back."
The IRS HR employee said that these terminations, coupled with the federal hiring freeze, could put the IRS behind on its functions into next year.
"If you have filed, or will file a tax return, you are going to feel an impact," they said.
Are you a federal worker with a story or information to share? Contact these reporters via Signal at madisonhoff.06, julianakaplan.33, and asheffey.97, or via email at asheffey@businessinsider.com, jkaplan@businessinsider.com and mhoff@businessinsider.com.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk: I apologise for some of my Trump posts
Elon Musk has made a public apology to Donald Trump for posting incendiary comments on social media that imploded their relationship. The billionaire Tesla founder, who had been one of Mr Trump's closest advisers, called for the US president to be impeached and claimed he was named in the Epstein files. 'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far,' Mr Musk wrote on Wednesday morning. He did not specify which ones, although he has since deleted the claim about Mr Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Trump said that Mr Musk had 'lost his mind' in the meltdown, which started with a disagreement over the Republican's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill. Mr Musk had been hired as a 'special government employee' to head up the new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), controversially tasked with downsizing the federal workforce and slashing spending. While he enjoyed some success in his mission, he was upset with Mr Trump's decision to open the spending taps in his bill, saying it was undoing his team's work. Mr Musk exited the White House at the end of May, ending a turbulent 130-day stint in Mr Trump's team, just days after he said he was 'disappointed' with the new budget. A acordial public farewell to the man who appointed himself as Trump's 'first buddy', both said Mr Musk would stay on as an adviser. He was handed a gold key to the White House. But the simmering dissent went public last week when the pair began trading insults online, with Mr Musk denouncing the president's budget as 'a disgusting abomination' that will bankrupt the US. The Tesla billionaire called on Americans to help 'kill the bill', which includes multi-trillion-dollar tax breaks and a boost to defence spending. Mr Trump was quick to hit back, claiming that the Tesla billionaire had been irked by the legislation ending tax credit worth billions of dollars to his electric vehicle company. Credit: Reuters Their spat rapidly intensified when Musk called for the president's impeachment and claimed the Republican was 'in the Epstein files' – the dossier of US government information held on the late paedophile financier. In response, Mr Trump threatened to cancel US government contracts with Mr Musk's companies, which include SpaceX. By Saturday, Musk had deleted the worst of his tweets, in an apparent sign he was hoping to repair the rift between them. Yet, the damage was done. Mr Trump declared his relationship with the South African-born tech tycoon was over and that he had 'no desire' to mend it, accusing Mr Musk of being 'disrespectful to the office of the President'. Mr Trump also warned that there would be 'serious consequences' if Mr Musk switched his allegiance to the Democrats and funded rival candidates who would vote against the bill. JD Vance, the US vice-president, said Mr Musk had made a 'huge mistake' in picking a fight with Mr Trump. Over the weekend, he said he hoped he would 'come back into the fold', but acknowledged that might be difficult after he went 'nuclear' during the row. Credit: YouTube/ Theo Von Mr Musk bankrolled Mr Trump's election run to the eye-watering tune of $250 million (£185 million) and was rewarded with his 'special government employee' role. For months after Mr Trump's inauguration, Mr Musk rarely left his side, travelling on Air Force One, moving into Mar-a-Lago and having the president babysit his four-year-old son in the Oval Office. The night of the election, Mr Trump declared of Musk 'a star is born'. Weeks later, Mr Musk confessed he loved the president 'as much as a straight man can love another man'. The messy breakdown of their bromance, however, had been heavily predicted. Mr Trump, who has now refocused attention elsewhere including to the deployment of troops to the LA riots, recently told reporters he wasn't even thinking of Mr Musk. According to reports, he is considering giving away the red Tesla he bought from Musk earlier this year. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The days around Trump's trade war announcements saw spikes in lawmaker stock market transactions
In the days before President Donald Trump suddenly paused most of the punishing tariffs on foreign countries he had revealed in early April, more than a dozen congressional lawmakers were tied to thousands of dollars' worth of stock transactions, including significant purchases as the US stock market tumbled, a CNN analysis of financial filings shows. Seven Democrats and three Republicans reported stock transactions made on April 7, two days before Trump instituted the pause, according to a CNN review of a database of congressional financial filings compiled by Capitol Trades, a platform by the financial data research firm 2iQ which tracks lawmakers' financial activity. That day, a post on X erroneously suggested a pause was already underway, tumbling stocks and sending the markets into a state of turbulence. The next day, on the eve of Trump's tariff reprieve, seven Republicans and four Democrats were tied to transactions, filings show. The White House that day announced it would impose hefty tariffs on China and the S&P 500 closed at its lowest level so far this year. Then came April 9. 'BE COOL!' and 'THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that day, hours before his White House announced a 90-day pause on tariffs against a number of countries save for China. The announcement set the S&P 500 on track to post its biggest single-day gain since October 2008. House and Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long traded stocks, and their reported transactions so far this Congress have largely mirrored Americans' high volume of trading activity amid the frenetic market shifts fueled by the president's whipsaw economic policy. While lawmakers who spoke with CNN denied having advance briefings, some who bought ahead of the president's tariff reprieve stood to make significant gains after it spurred a market rebound. Lawmakers told CNN the trades were made largely by third-party financial advisors with unilateral control over their portfolios. But experts and some on Capitol Hill say questions around the timing of the transactions strikes at the heart of an ethical and optical question that has long dogged Congress: Can lawmakers play the market without generating suspicion their access to information gives them an unfair advantage, or should they ban the practice altogether? 'At a time where there was significant or important non-public information swirling around Washington, the public can't help but fear that members of Congress are using their access to information to personally profit,' Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Donna Nagy, who has testified before Congress on the issue, told CNN after viewing the trading data. 'And whether that perception is true or not, it is destructive. It fuels a corrosive belief that lawmakers are using their positions for purposes of profit and not for the public interest.' Lawmakers, their spouses, and children are permitted to make trades but they are mandated to report any activity done on their behalf within 45 days. They are only required to disclose a monetary value range for trades. From March 31 — just before the president's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs of at least 10% across all countries — through the April 9 pause, a total of 35 lawmakers (19 Republicans and 16 Democrats) reported purchases between about $8.6 million and $27.9 million and sales between about $5.9 million and $22.4 million across 1,265 transactions. Not all of the trades were individual stocks; some involved were mutual funds or public bonds. From March 31 through April 9, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna reported the most transactions at 438, while GOP Rep. Kevin Hern reported the single highest-value transaction of up to $5 million on April 4. Eleven lawmakers reported one transaction. Fourteen lawmakers reported two transactions or fewer. The transactions Khanna reported, his communications director Sarah Drory told CNN, were not stock trades but part of a trust managed by an independent third party that stems from money his wife had before they were married. Hern spokeswoman Miranda Dabney, meanwhile, told CNN: 'Rep. Hern does not have day-to-day management or control over his stock portfolio or his businesses.' In statements provided to CNN, representatives for the lawmakers who reported trades during that period pointed to various agreements with third-party financial advisors and noted that some purchases were bonds and not individual stocks. The offices told CNN the lawmakers are not directly involved in the purchases. 'President Trump was telling the entire world for months, and even decades, about the benefits of tariffs. It was even a central component of his 2024 presidential campaign. Suggesting any behind-the-scenes coordination is ridiculous,' a spokesperson for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said, pushing back on concerns around the timing of the trades. The Georgia Republican – whose 11 reported purchases on April 8 included between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock each, according to the filings – does not direct her own trades but instead has a fiduciary agreement with her portfolio manager, the spokesperson said. Around Trump's trade war, a number of Republicans publicly pledged support for Trump's economic policy while protecting their own financial interests. Sen. Markwayne Mullin sold between $290,000 and $700,000 in stocks across industries from a joint account on April 8 through 'an independent, third-party operator firm that manages all stock portfolio investments on his behalf,' according to his spokesperson. At the same time, the Oklahoma Republican was publicly supporting the president's escalating trade war, despite the financial decisions that appeared to mirror broader consumer concerns. Hern, the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House said on February 13, shortly after Trump announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all countries: 'These reciprocal tariffs will incentivize other nations to level the playing field and remove long-standing, exorbitant tariffs.' On March 31 — two days before Trump announced expansive tariffs on April 2 — a trust affiliated with Hern sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of structured investments. For Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the Republicans behind the push to ban lawmaker stock trading, having an intermediary conduct the trades does little to assuage concern. 'Members of Congress should come here to advance the interests of their constituents, not to enrich themselves using stock trading,' Roy said. Rhode Island Rep. Seth Magaziner, one of the leading negotiators on the Democratic side of the effort to ban congressional stock trading who participates in regular meetings on the issue, similarly told CNN: 'We should eliminate the opportunity for members of Congress to engage in any sort of insider trading because the opportunity clearly exists.' The director of government affairs at the Project on Government Oversight Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette told CNN, 'You occasionally have these moments where it really clarifies and distills down just how bad this is. And I think the tariff announcements and subsequent trades and transactions are a prime example of that.' March 3 — the day before Trump levied an additional 10% tariff on China and a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian imports with some exceptions — saw the highest number of lawmakers reporting stock trading in a single day through mid-April, according to CNN's analysis. Sixteen lawmakers, evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, reported hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of transactions that day — most of them purchases. The president had confirmed at an afternoon White House event on March 3 that the tariffs would take effect the next day, leading to a sharp selloff in stocks. At that point, March 3 had so far been the worst day for the market. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, who reported purchases between $50,000 and $100,000, was the only lawmaker to report having personally traded on March 3. McCormick did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Lawmakers reached by CNN sought to distance themselves from the transactions filed during those key dates around Trump's tariffs announcements. CNN reached out to the 16 lawmakers who reported transactions on March 3, and the 35 lawmakers, some of whom overlapped, who reported having transactions between March 31 and April 9. Those who responded to CNN said they were unaware of trades being made through various agreements with financial advisors. They said the filings did not reflect traditional stock trades and that they had no interactions with the administration around key announcements. Some told CNN the filings reflected trades or reinvestments through a joint account or by a spouse. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer is waiting on congressional approval for a blind trust, a spokesman told CNN. GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman, meanwhile, has instructed his investment advisor to not invest in individual stocks and is in the process of putting his assets back into a fund, after receiving heat for recent investments, spokesperson Kinsey Featherston shared. Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson has begun the process of divesting her stocks, managed by an independent third party, into ETFs and mutual funds upon becoming a member of Congress, her spokesperson told CNN. Some said they supported efforts to ban lawmaker trading of individual stocks, even those with active portfolios, including Khanna and GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan. The STOCK Act passed with overwhelming support in 2012 to increase transparency about lawmaker stock trading and made it illegal for lawmakers to use inside information for financial benefit. But lawmakers and experts argue problems persist with existing reporting structures and enforcement mechanisms. Along with only being required to report a monetary range of transactions, lawmakers also don't report the timing of a trade on a given day, which could be useful context for those determining whether seemingly well-timed trades could be based on non-public information. There is also currently no designated oversight body to determine whether lawmakers hold a conflict of interest in their trading practices. Legal experts say that even lawmakers who use financial advisors to trade on their behalf are not necessarily insulated from scrutiny, and it depends on the details of the agreement. The $200 fine for late filings is hardly a deterrent, experts argue. 'That doesn't pass the sniff test even a little bit because there is no guarantee that they're not talking to those people because there is no prohibition against them from talking to those financial advisors,' Hedtler-Gaudette said of the arrangements most lawmakers have with their financial advisors. As efforts to ban congressional stock trading have fallen short, scholars and ethics experts have argued that members of Congress are privy to more information than the average American and are often faced with legislative decisions that overlap with their investment portfolios. 'It is essentially completely legal for a congressman, congresswoman or senator to go to Goldman Sachs, Blackrock or Vanguard and be like, 'Hey I'm proposing this regulation, what do you think will be the impact on the market?' There is nothing to stop you from that,' said Dr. Jan Hanousek Jr., an assistant professor at the University of Memphis who has studied the patterns of lawmaker stock trading. 'This is an insane problem.' Beyond ethics concerns, a 2022 Fox News poll found that 70% of respondents supported banning members of Congress and their families from trading stock, while a January UC San Diego study found that even when lawmakers make their trading practices public, it 'erodes' the legitimacy of Congress. The push to ban lawmaker stock trading last peaked when dozens of federal officials and some lawmakers made lucrative stock and mutual fund trades as the government was preparing for the financial onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. The Department of Justice has since closed investigations into the moves. But in a sign this Congress' bipartisan group of lawmakers may be closer to finding the political will to ban the practice, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the president himself have publicly supported the effort, following news of lawmaker stock trading activity around the tariff announcements. 'I have been working on this issue for years,' Roy told CNN. 'We can and should fix the problem during this term now that President Trump and the Speaker have signaled their support for the measure. We have the will and the mandate of the American people to do this. Let's deliver.' CNN's John Towfighi contributed to this report.
Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Ukraine's defense industry says the fight against Russia has shown it that the West's approach to weapons is all wrong
Ukraine's defense industry is urging the West to abandon its longtime fixation on sleek, expensive weaponry in favor of cheaper, mass-produced arms, the kind needed to survive and win a grinding war of attrition against Russia. Serhiy Goncharov, the CEO of the National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries — which represents around 100 Ukrainian companies — told Business Insider that the West's longstanding focus on fielding limited numbers of cutting-edge systems could be a serious disadvantage in a protracted conflict. Those systems are good to have, but mass is key. An argument for mass The war in Ukraine shows you don't need a handful of ultra-precise, expensive weapons, Goncharov told BI. You need a massive supply of good enough firepower. He said that the expensive weapons like the US military's M982 Excalibur guided munition (each shell costs $100,000) "don't work" when the other side has electronic warfare systems and the kind of traditional artillery rounds that are 30 times cheaper. Goncharov pointed to the M107, a self-propelled gun that was first fielded by the US in the 1960s, as an example of inexpensive firepower that can be effective in large numbers. "You don't need 10 Archers from the Swedish that are probably one of the best artillery systems in the world," he said, referring to the artillery system made by BAE Systems that was given to Ukraine by Sweden. Instead, you need 200 cheap howitzers like the Bohdana one that Ukraine makes. The "enormous rate of damage," the significant rate of ammo and equipment attrition, in a fight like this means you need a constant supply of weaponry to keep fighting, especially when there isn't any guarantee the high-end weapons will be the game changers promised. Russia's grinding attritional warfare Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been one marked by extensive use of artillery and tremendous ammunition expenditure. The war in some ways resembes the huge, destructive battles of World War I and World War II, with high casualties and substantial equipment losses. Russia has one of the world's largest militaries backed by a large population. The country has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to pursue an attritional style of warfare, committing a lot of troops and weaponry to a fight to slowly wear down its foe. Russia's invasion has chewed through equipment. The UK Ministry of Defense said in December that Russia had lost over 3,600 main battle tanks and almost 8,000 armored vehicles since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. The Russians have the mass to absorb those losses. Ukraine has struggled with weapon and ammo shortages, as well as deficiencies in manpower. Ukraine turned to small, cheap drones as an asymmetric warfare alternative; Russia has employed uncrewed systems in battle as well. China, another concern in the West, has built a similar kind of force, one with the mass to take losses. The West, on the other hand, has spent the last two decades and change fighting lower-level adversaries where its forces can win the day with superior capabilities. European and NATO are waking up Goncharov's warning is one that has been echoed by other Western defense officials and companies. Countries have been keen to learn lessons about fighting Russia from the conflict in Ukraine, particularly in Europe, where many countries warn Russia could pursue further aggression in the future and defense spending is growing rapidly. Gabrielius Landsbergis, the former defense minister of Lithuania, a NATO ally bordering Russia, previously described the war to Business Insider as one of "high quantities." He said that while the West has largely focused on new and expensive weaponry that takes a long time to manufacture, Russia has been "building something that's cheap, that's expendable, that's fast." He said the West has "been preparing for a different kind of war" than what it would face in one against Russia, focusing on impressive equipment that is "very expensive." Troels Lund Poulsen, the Danish defense minister, previously told BI that "one of the lessons" from Ukraine is that the West needs far greater quantities of inexpensive weaponry to meet the threats posed by Russia and China. The head of NATO, Mark Rutte, urged countries to take similar learnings earlier this year, saying the alliance is too slow at developing weapons. He said the alliance works toward perfect, "but it doesn't have to be perfect." He said that Ukraine will go ahead with equipment that is a "six to seven" out of 10, while NATO militaries insist on reaching "nine or 10." He said it wasn't about getting rid of the expensive weaponry completely, but about finding a balance. It's about "getting speed and enough quality done in the right conjunction." That's something warfare experts have also told BI. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and the director of research in the foreign-policy program at the Brookings Institution, said the West's approach needs to change. The American military, for instance, is far more used to wars where "the whole point is you're not going to be slogging it out for months and years on end." But he also said that doesn't mean the West needs to completely abandon the development of advanced systems. "Those things have not become unimportant just because we realized that other things are also important," he said. The UK's armed forces minister also warned last month that the war showed the West needs to change how it procures weaponry. Luke Pollard said Ukraine's fight showed NATO "the way we have run our militaries, the way we have run our defense, is outdated." He said NATO militaries "build and procure really expensive high-end bits of kit. And it will take you five, 10 years: five years to run a procurement challenge, another 10 years to build it." Industry has taken note, too. Kuldar Väärsi, the CEO of Milrem Robotics, an autonomous unmanned ground vehicle company in NATO ally Estonia, told BI in May that "we need to learn from Ukraine, and we need to get more pragmatic about what kind of equipment we buy." He said Europe needs to learn that "having a hundred more simple pieces of equipment is better than having 10 very sophisticated pieces of equipment." He said countries need to start buying less-sophisticated pieces of weaponry en masse so industry can adjust. "Industry has to manufacture what the customer is buying. And if the customer is still buying only a few very sophisticated items, then the industry just aligns with that." And the reality is that may not work.
